The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
One of the most important criteria of the fair use doctrine is that it is absolutely necessary to have an image to illustrate the article. In this case, I admit that including the original score emphasizes the facts presented, but the very nature of it is a perfect example of an image that does not explicitly "increase readers' understanding. It would suffice to say, "The instructions for the work indicate that it consists of three movements, for each of which the only instruction is "tacet,"," which the article does.
ALTON.ıl01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Not exactly.... fair use is much much much harder to claim when you reproduce the whole work than when you reproduce just a part of it. IThis is one of the most important factors courts look at when deciding whether something is fair use.
Calliopejen100:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
My response didn't accurately reflect Bkell's statement; I thought it was referring to a more broad assumption. I know the idea well, and it also states that an image need fail only one criterion to be removed. I have stated the most obvious.
ALTON.ıl16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No encyclopedic value. This isn't used in any articles; it's used on the uploader's userpage. Including a nude photo of yourself on your userpage is obviously not really appropriate or in the spirit of Wikipedia's userpage policy (
Wikipedia:User page)
Bsdfff06:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: User has displayed the correct copyright information and has the rights to use the image. There is nothing pornographic or disturbing about this picture, it simply shows a male without clothes. --
Teggles00:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
None of those instances are necessary. The first is a Commons gallery, the second is a diff that has since been reverted, and the last is a personal gallery.
ALTON.ıl22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, the cited guidelines do not oppose Roman's image. They warn against bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. The only risk of disrepute associated with a nude male photo is one currently being flaunted by the complainant.
Dyskolos05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep one of the coolest user pages ever. I didn't see anything in the spirit of the user page guideline against this. The nominator could have been more specific why they think it's inappropriate.
a.z.00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - it's all a bit moot as this discussion should be being held on Commons. Far as I can see, though, it's correctly licensed and its use on that user's page meets
WP:USER criteria -
Alison❤12:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete This staged photograph of a young adolescent is clearly posed to draw attention to the genitals rather than the face. Therefore it does not serve any useful purpose on a wikipedia user page. It should be deleted unless definite proof can be given that the subject was legally an adult, not an exploited minor, at the time it was taken.
Giano07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)reply
You are projecting, my dear. My attention is drawn to the muscles and the haircut and the nose. The picture serves the purpose of displaying what I look like so the fellow writers get an impression of what kind of person they are dealing with. It's been helpful. I have legally been an adult since 1998 and the picture was taken in 1993 when I was 23 years old. I can provide proof by e-mail if you are interested. I urge you to relax:
Roman Czyborra14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment No country in the entire world has such strict age of consent/majority laws that you can't be legally an adult until age 28, Roman. Nice try though. —
$PЯINGεrαgђ 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Listed as fair use due to publicity photo. However this is a photo of a individual, and therefore considered unsuitable under Wikipedia policies.
Macboots07:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Please do not delete comments about an image under discussion! I listed this image because it exists primarily to identify
Annette O'Toole and as such violates fair use as free images can be used for that purpose. I contest the justification that this image is needed for the
Superman III page; there are numerous other photos that more effectively show scenes crucial to readers understanding of the film.
Macboots02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
One of the most important criteria of the fair use doctrine is that it is absolutely necessary to have an image to illustrate the article. In this case, I admit that including the original score emphasizes the facts presented, but the very nature of it is a perfect example of an image that does not explicitly "increase readers' understanding. It would suffice to say, "The instructions for the work indicate that it consists of three movements, for each of which the only instruction is "tacet,"," which the article does.
ALTON.ıl01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Not exactly.... fair use is much much much harder to claim when you reproduce the whole work than when you reproduce just a part of it. IThis is one of the most important factors courts look at when deciding whether something is fair use.
Calliopejen100:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
My response didn't accurately reflect Bkell's statement; I thought it was referring to a more broad assumption. I know the idea well, and it also states that an image need fail only one criterion to be removed. I have stated the most obvious.
ALTON.ıl16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No encyclopedic value. This isn't used in any articles; it's used on the uploader's userpage. Including a nude photo of yourself on your userpage is obviously not really appropriate or in the spirit of Wikipedia's userpage policy (
Wikipedia:User page)
Bsdfff06:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: User has displayed the correct copyright information and has the rights to use the image. There is nothing pornographic or disturbing about this picture, it simply shows a male without clothes. --
Teggles00:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
None of those instances are necessary. The first is a Commons gallery, the second is a diff that has since been reverted, and the last is a personal gallery.
ALTON.ıl22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, the cited guidelines do not oppose Roman's image. They warn against bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. The only risk of disrepute associated with a nude male photo is one currently being flaunted by the complainant.
Dyskolos05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep one of the coolest user pages ever. I didn't see anything in the spirit of the user page guideline against this. The nominator could have been more specific why they think it's inappropriate.
a.z.00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - it's all a bit moot as this discussion should be being held on Commons. Far as I can see, though, it's correctly licensed and its use on that user's page meets
WP:USER criteria -
Alison❤12:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete This staged photograph of a young adolescent is clearly posed to draw attention to the genitals rather than the face. Therefore it does not serve any useful purpose on a wikipedia user page. It should be deleted unless definite proof can be given that the subject was legally an adult, not an exploited minor, at the time it was taken.
Giano07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)reply
You are projecting, my dear. My attention is drawn to the muscles and the haircut and the nose. The picture serves the purpose of displaying what I look like so the fellow writers get an impression of what kind of person they are dealing with. It's been helpful. I have legally been an adult since 1998 and the picture was taken in 1993 when I was 23 years old. I can provide proof by e-mail if you are interested. I urge you to relax:
Roman Czyborra14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment No country in the entire world has such strict age of consent/majority laws that you can't be legally an adult until age 28, Roman. Nice try though. —
$PЯINGεrαgђ 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Listed as fair use due to publicity photo. However this is a photo of a individual, and therefore considered unsuitable under Wikipedia policies.
Macboots07:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Please do not delete comments about an image under discussion! I listed this image because it exists primarily to identify
Annette O'Toole and as such violates fair use as free images can be used for that purpose. I contest the justification that this image is needed for the
Superman III page; there are numerous other photos that more effectively show scenes crucial to readers understanding of the film.
Macboots02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)reply